impact unions will have on the election in november. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week on "q&a," ami horowitz discusses his newly released documentary entitled "u.n. me." host: you made a documentary and then you left your apartment one day and somebody said something to you. what was your story? guest: thank you for having me on. i started at a for-profit documentary that ended up a non-profit. host: what is the name of the documentary?

guest: it is called "u.n. me." we call it docutainment. host: who confronted you? guest: i walked outside of my apartment. the upper west side of manhattan, nothing exciting happens. i was greeted by a man who was waiting very nicely dressed in a well-made suit. he was waiting for me outside of my apartment. he said, are you ami horowitz? i said, yes i am. he said, is this movie more important than your family? looking back at it, you wanted to put him in a grip.

you are stunned. i said, who the hell are you? off he went. he was gone. it was a pretty shocking wake- up into this web i have fallen into. i have no idea who he was. host: was he an american? guest: know he was not. host: why do you think he was doing this? guest: i can only surmise. we rattle a lot of cages. i think we rattled a cage that he and his people felt offended by. i can only imagine this is a warning, this might not be a film you want to release. host: i found this at one

theater that does not normally run documentaries. guest: almost all of the screens were the major theater chains. like i said, i was never a huge documentary fan. i wanted to make something i wanted to see. something tells funny and engaging. i did not make this for a documentary audience but more for a mainstream audience. the mainstream theaters wanted to have it. host: it was a serious moment in your life. it was why he decided to do a documentary. you were thinking about rwanda. guest: do not all think about that when we are sitting around our couch?

it was an event like to put my finger on exactly. it was a saturday night. you watch a movie. i was watching "bowling for columbine." michael more and i have very different political views. i always looked at him as a significant figure. he makes something i want to see. i was watching the movie. i had seen it before. for some reason i was thinking about rwanda. thinking, here is a genocide that happened, not in the olden days, it happened while i was working. i said, there is one going on right now. as i sit here, in my comfortable apartment in manhattan, there are people who

are running for their lives in terror. i said, how can this be in our day and age? i thought to myself, as a society, we are so much better off than almost every way imaginable. you look at the availability of food, medicine, in almost every way we are better off. the one way we are not is security. we are probably more insecure than we were before. i thought, whose job is it to stop these things? it became very obvious it was the job of the un. host: how would you describe your political views? guest: i would call it right of center. there are things i probably go left to. i would say right of center. host: how much did this cost you? guest: i did not even want to

say. it cost about $2 million to make. host: are you going to get the money back? guest: no. it was one of the more successful documentaries. the economics in the film business are such where it is hard to recover your cost. host: when did you start the process? guest: i was an investment banker. within two weeks i had quit my job. that was going back to 2006. host: you were at lehman brothers. how many years? guest: four or five years. host: let show a clip. they can get the whole documentary? guest: unmovie.com. host: here is an excerpt. >> it was april 20, 2009.

the united nations was opening its anti racism conference in switzerland. it was designed as a forum to use the global reach of the moral authority to end racism and discrimination, strengthening human rights everywhere. >> racism is a denial of human rights. pure and simple. there comes a time in the affairs of humankind when we must stand firm on the principles that bind us. there comes a time to reaffirm our faith in fundamental human rights and dignity. >> it was only the second conference of its time in the un's history. the man the united nations had tapped to deliver the keynote address waited in the wings.

>> the time is now. the time is now. >> who would be the guiding light? who better than this guy? >> please escort the president to the podium. [applause] >> this is ahmadinijad, president of iran. something tells me he was not the ideal speaker. host: were you there? guest: yeah. we went to the conference because he was the keynote address. we like to do some gags.

right after that he was going to give a press conference. i was going to try to put him under citizen's arrest. luckily for me, my crew missed the flight. i was there by myself. we had to come up with another gag. what is really funny is it sets up with the u.n. is totally about. their ideas are phenomenal. nobody can argue with the idea, the words they say. ban ki-moon said it perfectly. nothing he said we can disagree with. they screw it all up by giving a guy in, ahmadinijad, one of the snakes living on our planet, the keynote address. it is unbelievable.

host: somebody is saying, i guess ami horowitz is jewish. the name. i know because i read some of the back story. they say, this is an israeli thing. guest: i never get the connection. my mom is from israel. israel was not mentioned in the movie at all. we could not. there was a tremendous amount of bias. the u.n. does not have any moral stand unless it is israel. i chose to not put it in the movie. i did not want to debate to be about israel. i wanted to be about the united nations. oftentimes, you are going to start debating israel. host: how is it that somebody that a lot of americans think is not a friend of this country, mr. ahmadinijad, how

did he get this? guest: they are going to say, it is all the process. we have a process. he submitted his name. he was one of the only world leaders. it may or may not be true. the point is, if you stand for the ideals you claim to, how can you have that man did this? the nations of the u.n. requires you to have him there. what i expect you to do, is to speak out against them. say, everything i said has been countered by discuss it. my hands have been tied. they did not do it. host: ban ki-moon will be there until 2016.

when you went to the un, who did you work with? what were the rules? you were walking around at 5:00 in the afternoon and going down the hallway. there is nobody in offices. guest: we got unprecedented access. how we got access is a funny story. i called up ted turner. ted turner is one of the most powerful people at the un. he give them $1 billion a few years ago. $1 billion gives you a lot of power. i called him and spoke with his offices. i said, of like to meet. i would like to pitch the idea. we had a meeting. we talked about the idea. i do not how they came away. they thought it was a pro-un movie.

the u.n. opened up the red carpet. i think they regret that decision. host: was the former senator involved? have they gone back here now that the documentary is finished? guest: the u.n. has spoken out about the movie a number of times. the foundation -- they did make a statement. they made a public statement. host: how much access did you have? guest: unprecedented. we were able to shoot anywhere we wanted. i am running around the place. picking up phone calls. i am their late at night. it is an embarrassment. the last place you want to be is at 5:00 standing outside the building. you will get stampeded by the people running out. of genocide happened between

9:00 and 5:00 eastern standard time. host: let's go back to another accept. how long is the documentary? guest: 93 minutes. >> this is a story of betrayal and abuse. men working for the united nations. >> sexual abuse is a continuing problem. of the missions launched, the vast majority have been implicated in sexual abuse. in the congo, there have been hundreds of rapes and the creation of a pedophilia bring. it was headed by this man. >> the abuse is not the special purview of special countries.

over the course of our history, every contributor has had an example of this behavior. >> we take very forceful measures so that any individual who is convinced of sexual abuse will be prosecuted. >> you will not get away with it. >> there is almost no peacekeeper who has been held accountable and who has had to face the courts. >> you may not end up with the kind of justice that would be appropriate. >> my understanding is they have a new zero tolerance policy. somewhere in the books it says peacekeepers should not diddle minor children, as if this is something that had to be written. host: go back to that one fellow. has he been convicted?

guest: he was one of the very few. here is the problem, the u.n. does not have any paz secure real powers. they send the person to their home country. most of the countries refused to prosecute these people. what often happens is, even with all of the charges, you are in africa, this is not going to a court of law. the charges are made. if they are brave enough. generally, the u.n. pushes it off. very rarely have they ever sent away -- he might be one of the only two examples and the thousands of cases where someone has been prosecuted. host: why were the folks saying they were tough on this stuff? guest: whenever you do an interview or use it to a person, you say, they did it.

they know how to handle it. you say, they are on top of it. at the end of the day, nothing happens. you hear them say, zero tolerant. probably 15 times. yes, they continue unabated. the rhetoric in no way matches the action on the ground. host: can you get through all of the stories and figures out what the budget is? guest: the other thing about the u.n. that is unbelievable, it is meant to represent all nations on the earth. it should be one of the most current parent organizations on the planet. the reality is, it is one of the most opaque. it is difficult to get any hard information. peace in these together, the budget is roughly in 2008, 2009, 2010, the last number we had, it was $24 billion.

host: i have a list of all the different organizations. everything from the food and agricultural, atomic agency, international monetary fund. guest: no. it includes the core mission. host: for one year? guest: yes. host: does that include peacekeeping? guest: yes. host: i saw a number the u.s. pays 22%. guest: it is $1 billion for the secretariat. it does not include the councils, the peacekeeping. in 2010 we give $8 billion. host: why is it that the united states pays 22% of the bill and japan pays only 12%?

guest: china, i think the number is 3.1%. that is what is insane. if you add in the money they get from the one, it is much lower. host: in germany, they only have 80 million people, they pay 8%. guest: we are suckers. they know, our checkbooks are open. i have no problem giving $8 billion to the u.n. if i knew it was working. if i knew these people were solved and the problems of the world, i have no problem. the reality is, they are throwing the money away. we are acting as classic enablers. no different than somebody who

is unable in a drug addict or a gambler. if it continued to give these people what they want without forcing behavior, what forces them to change their behavior? host: here is another excerpt. guest: the ivory coast was a former french colony. they had independence. they have had a number of major problems. a civil war raging on for years. the u.n. came in. host: you are trying to interview somebody. guest: trying to. the head of the un peacekeeping. host: let's watch a little bit. >> i grabbed my cameraman. since he had to escort the security council back to the air

force, i finagled my way onto one of the buses. security council. they seem pretty uptight. anybody know a good song we can sing? come on. nobody? there is the man. the head of the mission. sweet. we got him. time to get some answers. tell me why the u.n. is really taking care of the people and helping the people? >> in general terms, the u. n comes into an area when there is a difference of opinion.

>> i was told there were peacekeepers who had killed ivoirians. >> at the beginning of the crisis, we had >> militants fighting each other. >> it sounds to me like he is dodging the question. >> there were talking like 50 or 60. how can you not be aware? >> ok. >> not the answer is i was looking for. host: explain all of that. guest: he was the head of un peacekeeping. he was from chad. a very interesting story about him and chad.

the head of human rights for the un, he was known in chad as the butcher. he was the main guy for the intelligence agency who would torture people. it gives you a sense of who is populating these offices. there was a slaughter of unarmed ivoirians who were protesting the french peacekeepers. the peacekeepers were sent in by the u.n. were french. the former masters. they did it for the sole reason to put their foot back into the neck of their former colony. when the people were upset because they were robbing banks, they were shooting people, the french were. they protested in front of the peacekeepers. they opened fire. we went there to get an answer to why they did that.

host: why did they let you on the bus? guest: i do not know. i said, i have to be on this bus. by happenstance, the security council was in there at the time. they said it would be a good way to get answers. the bus was taking them from their press conference back to the airport. host: the guy to sitting next to you, did he know you were taping? he seemed to hesitate. guest: it was an odd situation. on their private bus. host: how did they go along with the singing? guest: they did not seem to understand that one. i was on the cool bus, obviously.

host: who paid for it? guest: investors, myself. i had access to investors. they believed in what we would do it. they thought this was an important issue. host: did they think it would get their money back? guest: when i started, i did not have any gray hairs. after, i have one for each investor. they did not pressure me. they knew this is not a general money-making venture. they did not put a lot of pressure on me. they have been very good. host: the next clip, the un cannot agree on the definition of terrorism. we see two people, congressman simmons and a man from the american enterprise institute.

most of what you see are conservatives. should there be any doubt that this is from a conservative point of view? guest: not at all. the only elected officials we had were republican. we had more access to republicans. the truth is, i am more conservative. everybody who worked on the film, my co-director, the writers, were all liberals. we had letters from the daily show. from the onion. i was the only conservative. in taking them to task is a conservative issue, it has become more bipartisan.

she is the hero of the movie. she is as left-wing as you can get. host: we will run this clip. >> of less than one month after september 11 and 11 days after enacting resolution 1373, syria was elected to sit on the security council. >> syria provides a safe havens, training, security. >> they are arming hezbollah. they have been responsible for bringing rockets into the area. >> they paid for arms for hezbollah. >> despite the deep connection, syria was elevated to the presidency of the security council. >> there are a number of countries that improve the performance.

>> maybe the problem was more fundamental than i thought. how does the u.n. define terrorism? >> the united nations has not been able to define terrorism. >> the member states have not been able to agree upon a definition. >> it is a very difficult thing. >> my own view is that terrorism is like pornography, you might not be able to define it but you know it when you see it. host: why were they having trouble? guest: they do not want to define it. the reason is very simple, they are going to be calling a good third of the membership terrorist nations. they cannot stand that. host: how much do these folks make?

guest: they make quite a bit. you can make, you start in the six figures. you can make quite a bit higher than that. a lot of that is tax-free. i only wish i worked there. that i had known. i would have worked hard. host: if an american works there, do they have to pay income tax? guest: it gets complicated. i am not sure how it works. host: in order for you to get yourself up to speed, how much studying did you have to do? guest: i probably read 20 or 30 books. dozens and dozens of white papers. a countless amount of articles. quite a bit. i was pretty fluent on the un and the issues before i started.

i came in with a point of view. i wanted to understand every side of the un. some of the books i read were pro-un. the founding, why it was being created. the thought process. a lot of very interesting stuff about what the ideas were. host: 193 countries are members of the un. there are only 196 countries in the world. taiwan is not a member. maybe a couple of other places. guest: taiwan, a taiwanese diplomat cannot walk into the building. host: they used to be a member. guest: yeah. host: did you ask anybody about that?

guest: i did. they say, there is one china. therefore, taiwan is not a country. host: who named it? guest: my wife. if i wanted to stay married, that was the name we were sticking with. >> sometimes, the u.n. does more than just have a dialogue. for example, the palestinian refugee program provides services for kids, the elderly, and terrorists? >> it was peopled by officials who were terribly sympathetic to hamas. >> i am sure there are hamas members. i do not see it is a crime. >> it may not be a crime. with the taxpayers be disturbed by the office of the staffer

who hung suicide bomber to beat on his wall? i prefer pictures of my kids. the un allowing the usage of vehicles for terrorist getaways. >> they have a very poor idea of where its resources are used. what did the vehicles are used in terrorist attacks. we have seen tapes of vehicles marked with rpg weapons being loaded. >> the un is directing our tax dollars to decorate offices and fund ambulance ride along. host: he was a congressman. when did you interview him? if you started in 2006, you were done, win? guest: we were done in 2010.

host: how long has it been out? guest: it cannot june 1. it came out on dvd a month ago. host: to give the foundation a chance to talk? guest: i had somebody reach out to do is screening. i have not heard back. host: did you offer them a chance to have a rebuttal in the movie? why not. guest: it is my movie. at the interviews are you and people giving their say. it is not meant to be an evenhanded, here is my point of view. i said, this is my thesis. here is how i'm going to prove it. i would be happy to debate it.

i never had them as part of the movie itself. host: did you ever talk to michael moore? guest: i did. we have become very friendly through the process. he was honored that he was an inspiration. we have spoken extensively. he disagrees, in his words, we cannot give them enough money. he thinks they are doing a great job. he was excited, he has always believed that it is important for conservatives to make movies. he is right. the documentary format has been honed by the left. they made a huge mistake not creating compelling documentary is. the left made the same mistake with talk radio.

when talk radio first came out, they did not get involved. they cannot get a foothold. they have tried. they have failed. the ride is making the same mistake with documentaries. if they do not wake up and say, we have to make high-quality entertainment movies, the way our politics are set up, that is a big part of the dialogue. host: where did you get your views? guest: it was informed by the way i was raised. my parents were both, they were reagan supporters. they were very much centrist. very pro-israel. they were very socially moderate. very hawkish when it came to foreign policy. very concerned about the way the u.s. spend their money.

i got it from my parents. host: where reborn? guest: i was born in los angeles. i have been in new york for 17 years. host: where did you go to college? >> guest: i went to usc. and suppose the trouble with an israeli passport. i do not have one. my mom moved to the united states when she was 22. very early 20's. she met my dad and los angeles. they got married and had made. my father passed away a couple is ago. my mother is still in los angeles. host: let's go back to the documentary. this section is oil for food programs. >> i do not know what i am

missing. why was a stop not put to it when they saw there was corruption? >> we were talking about a mismanaged operation. they were not on speaking terms. when issues came up, it is used that there was a kickback mechanism, it would be easy for these things to get stuck in the system. >> i have little to no doubt the failure to move aggressively to clean up the program was because there was enough money so the cleanup never occurred. >> any resignations? >> i do not think anyone will resign. >> they think it is time for someone to step down? >> no. >> and no one has gone to jail. no one has been fired for the biggest scam in the history of humanitarian relief.

>> why would anybody resign? host: who is the gentleman you were first talking to? guest: he was one of the first whistle-blowers on the food program. he worked for the head of the program. he worked with him. he wrote an extremely funny book on his experience called "backstabbing for beginners." the whole thing, that is why we decided to have a lot of comedy. we hired guys from the onion. as sad as it is, it is right for satire and humor. it is so ridiculous. the biggest humanitarian scandal in history of the world, his

answer is hell no. host: to you have an opinion of kofi annan? guest: i thought he would be the bogyman. what i ended up finding is, he is not. he is not a bad man. i do not think he was correct. he has the same moral blindness that affects a lot of the diplomats. the real evil guy was boutros- ghali. boutros squared. he was there for four years. one term. am i wrong? guest: a look at the list. ban ki-moon?

guest: i was really excited when he was first elected. i was worried it might ruin the movie. he was a south korean, an ally to the united states. i thought he would make changes. soon after he was put in place, they hung saddam hussein. he came out with a statement that i thought was going to change the united nations. that people were attacking the iraqis for a planned capital punishment. he made a statement, he said, maybe we should not focus on saddam's death, let's focus on how many people he killed. i said, discuss it gets it. the next day, but they got to him.

he said, do not misunderstand what i am saying. the fact they killed him is terrible. he changed the way he was viewed. host: did you talk to him? guest: i did not. i came close. two body guards pushed me away. host: here is more. >> hell yeah they knew in rwanda. they said, this is what is going to happen. here is modest authority. operational authority. one of them was to protect and sees an arms cache. more than that, it would send a signal that we know. he was told no. he was told, it is more important for you to protect the image of impartiality then it is for you to take these modest operations.

>> were you or the other members made aware? >> it was never brought to my attention. i know from talking to many of the other ambassadors that it came as a complete and horrified surprise. the security council was never told of this. >> i felt i had been chopped at the news. that i had it in the bag. that it had been taken away. >> they fail to act on this opportunity. guest: we cannot get access to him. we have a number of interviews he gave. he is one of the few heroes of that very dark time. host: did you go to rwanda? guest: we did not.

host: how many places did it go? guest: africa, asia, u.s. host: how many hours did you record? guest: hundreds of hundreds. host: did anybody figure out what you doing? guest: no. i take it back. they did figure it out towards the end. when i went to geneva, we opened the clip with ahmadinijad, they were getting a sense of what we were about. i recall, i was walking down the hallway. we were credentialed. i was walking down the hallway. there was some guy who was eating a sandwich, he looked up at me. i saw his mouth dropped. he said, why were you here?

he said, it cannot be here. i said, i have credentials. he ran off. you can use the bureaucracy against them. they ended up throwing me out. only at the end did they figure out. host: what did they do? guest: they did not do anything. we were already in editing when we shot the geneva park. it fell in our lap. we stopped editing. during the printable filming, they had no clue. it was afterwards. host: knowing what you know, if you are pro-un, what are some of the things he might say about this documentary?

that would argue with your premise. guest: that is an interesting question. if i was them, there are a few things i would say. i would say, why did you not give us equal time? my answer is, it is my movie. i crafted it the way i wanted. it is a polemic. you could argue that. the argument i hear most often is, we have problems. we have a lot of issues. it is better than nothing. that is not good enough for me. that is not acceptable. we can be better. we deserve better than what the un is offering. the cop out, it is all we have, it does not cut it. host: what do people think of the united states?

guest: there is a real disdain for the united states. they find the world we live in to be obnoxious. i think that they see the world as a safer place as multi-polar. the focus on freedom is something they find distasteful. not everybody wants freedom. not every country is going to be free. they look at the u.s. with a tremendous amount of disdain. host: why is there such dislike? if you put it in context, 300 million plus arabs and 14 million jews in the world, what is the distain all about? guest: i do not think the un hates jews.

as a general rule, it is way more anti-israel. host: that is what my question should have been. guest: it is interesting. i have said before that, i was raised to be respectful of the un. we owe them a debt of gratitude. israel was created in the united nations. i always feel like the u.n. looks at that as their original sin. they are trying to erase that. if it came to a vote today, in a million years it would never pass. i think you said it, you have a very large block of the united nations made up of arab nations. until their dying days, they will fight anything which they view as helping the state of israel.

if you are asking me why the arabs are anti-jewish, why that is, it is the same. you have to go into the arab psyche. a lot of it comes from jealousy. they look at a small country of 6 million people and they see a tremendous success. you look anywhere else and you see nothing else but failure. they have more people come up more money. they wonder, why not us? a lot of it is cultural. that is a big part of it. they have a long way to go. if we want to have a safer world, they have to join modernity. host: who is she and why did you use? guest: jody williams won the

nobel peace prize. she came to my attention because she was asked by the human rights council to go to sudan and come up with a report. they all knew what was going on. they needed a report. they chose her. they did not do much due diligence. what she is a bit crazy, i love her for that, she speaks the truth. they sent her out, she came back with a damning report, dimming in terms of what the u.n. was not doing. when she came in, they did whatever they could, they would do whatever they could to stop her from presenting. host: here is our last clip.

>> we believe today that the report before us is seriously flawed in a manner that sheds shadows -- >> we do not consider the documents have the legitimacy. we want to refer to the positive steps taken. >> the report cannot be considered comprehensive, objective, authentic, and accurate. >> it suffers from a lack of credibility. >> my last point is about credibility. it is not about ours it is about yours. the world hung its head in shame. it said, never again. too many of us have lost hope that never again seems to have no applicability in darfur. our job is to attempt to try to alleviate the suffering of the

people of dark fir who are being raped, pillaged, and burned while political wrangling goes on at the hallowed halls of the united nations. [applause] >> and they do not care about the report. host: i do not know whether she is right or wrong, when you listen to her report and you hear everybody else chime in against it, what is going on? do those representatives really believe what they are saying? guest: i do not think so. they are protecting their friends. they have each other's backs.

as she said, if iran is going to turn on sudan, what happens when the world turns on iran? or north korea? they are doing the same thing. they are all trying to protect each other. that is one of the main problems. host: the national security council has 15 members. five of them are permanent, china, russia, france, united states, great britain. you have 10 additional that serve for two years at a time. you have the general assembly. the interesting thing is 3% of the delegates, they do not have the money.

did you talk to anybody about, the five permanent members of the security council could also veto. guest: there is a lot of ossification in the u.n. because of the way it is structured. we did a lot on that. we ended up not including it. it is boring. it does lead to a lot of problems. on the other hand, you can say, thank god the u.s. has veto power. dealing with the u.n. is bad. you should see what it would be like without u.s. veto power. it would be focused on the united states and their atrocities. host: what do you say to the american people that the united states is paying 22% of the bill? guest: it is a travesty. china, the number two economy, 3%.

with the cash back program, less than that. it is terrific. it is hard to make a case that we should continue funding this. i am not against funding it. i say, give them more if it works. we cannot expect the u.n. to change if we continue to write blank checks. it is what it is. continue with you of doing. here is your money. host: the world bank is involved. the world food program, the world health organization. guest: those are good things. do not get me wrong. we talked about the things they do right. i would not argue it should cut funding. i think we should take a close look at what we're doing in terms of security. that is where we should take a few.

if they are not doing it right, we are going to pull funding. host: you came from the investment banking world. lehman brothers for five years. are you glad you left? guest: is that a rhetorical question? of course. making movies, it is phenomenal. host: you lost money. guest: this is true. my fun quotient has gone up significantly. i cannot imagine doing anything different. two girls. 11 and 8. host: what do they think? guest: they think it is cool. my wife is different. we met in school. in israel, we spent a year at the university of jerusalem. she is from new jersey. she has been extremely supportive.

how many wives would be willing to take this risk. she has been great. for her, she thinks i have gone off the deep end. host: did the writers objected and of the content? guest: no. a lot of them were pushing me to go further. these were all issues that they were not well versed with. it was a universe that they were just getting introduced to. they were shocked. they are all left wing. they were all raised with the notion that the one is making the world a better place. when you start seeing security issues, human rights issues, they felt were not pushing the envelope enough. they were blown away. host: is there going to be its second documentary? guest: there will probably be a second one.

i can promise you this, it will not be "u.n. me part 2." i am sick of it. you spend so much time on one topic, it is difficult to keep going. it drives you insane. i do not know how the people to cover it full time do it. the insanity drives you to the brink of madness. every time you see it, they do something to -- they say unbelievably ridiculous things. it drives you to the edge of insanity. host: those who want to see the full document 3 "u.n. me," can find it where? guest: theunmovie.com. 15 bucks. host: what is the best thing anyone has done because of this documentary?

guest: there is a lot going on in capitol hill. we screamed the movie for congressmen and senators. we screened the hill twice. i had democrats walked up to me and say, you opened up my eyes. it has been gratifying. we are in a situation where it cannot afford to throw our money away. if we can use it to build a better world, we should do it. if we cannot, we have to step reallocating resources into something else. maybe even a competing organization. one whose ideals are shared by all. a democracy-based organization. host: we are out of time.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> for a dvd copy, call 1-877- 662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments, visit us at qanda.org. programs are also available as podcasts. >> watched gavel-to-gavel coverage of the democratic convention from charlotte, north carolina. every minute, every speech. next, vice president biden campaigning in wisconsin. after that, a discussion about southern voters in the elect